Disposed

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2022WP/41933/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged inaction in assigning government porambok land they cultivated for 30 years. Court directed them to apply for D-form patta, which respondents must consider if they prove long possession, while protecting current peaceful possession until final decision on the application.

What did the court decide?

Directions to petitioner to apply for D-form patta within two weeks; respondents directed to consider application and pass orders within two months if long possession is proved; no interference with p

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah Vs The Government… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41933 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of the 4^th respondent herein, the Tahsildar, Muthukuru Mandal, Nellore District in assigning to the petitioners, the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-10 cents, in Sy.Nos.182 and 229 situated at Narikelapalli village which they have been cultivating for more than 30 years as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to assign the said land in favour of the petitioners and issue ‘D’ Form Pattas, to them …..“

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and granted father of the petitioner No.3, by name Narasaiah has occupied the government porambok land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.Nos.182 and 229 situated at Narikelapalli village, Murhukuru Mandal, Nellore District, about 30 years back he is cultivating the same. The said Narasaiah made several representations including 19.12.2015, 24.08.2014 to the revenue-authorities praying to grant assignment in his favour. The same were not considered

¶8

¶9

but allowed him to cultivate the land uninterruptedly. The petitioners being successors, cultivating the subject land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent, without assigning any reasons, is asking the petitioners to vacate the land. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶10

Learned Assistant Government Pleader on oral instructions has submitted that the petitioner have so far not made any application for grant of D-form patta. Though the petitioner have stated in the affidavit and also have filed material paper that he made representations on 09.12.2015 and 24.08.2017 to the respondents; but the same were not received by them. On a perusal of the said representations, there is no such endorsement to prove that the representations have been received by the respondents herein.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the copy of the Adangal showing that the land claimed by the petitioners in Sy. No. 182 and 229 as ‘cheruvu poramboku’ in which any assignment cannot be granted. But however, have admitted that whenever the land in said survey numbers is dry, the petitioners are cultivating the said land.

¶12

¶13

In view of the same, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make an application for grant of assignment in their favour if at all they have long possession over the subject property. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, directing the petitioner to make an application for grant of D-form patta within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of the petitioners filing such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same, if at all the petitioners are in long possession over the subject property and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of two (2) months thereafter. Till such time, respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners’ subject property, without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

________________________ SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA 20.12.2022 Psr/Gsp.

¶16

¶17

132

¶18

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶19

(Disposed of)

¶20

Writ Petition. No.41933 OF 2015

¶21

Date:20.12.2022

¶22

Psr/Gsp

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundala Jayaramaiah, S/o Narasaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sreedhar Kumar Reddy, Chittoor Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Rev. Dept. and 3 Ors.

K.Mohan Reddy, S/o. K.Muni Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Srimat Prativadi Bhayankaram Mantraratnam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bonthala Reddamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chitala Ramaiah S/o Venkataiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Venkata Narayana Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary